[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002181116.GH29794@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:11:17 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Anurag Aggarwal <anurag19aggarwal@...il.com>
Cc: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Query] Stack Overflow in "arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c" while
unwinding frame
On 24 September 2013 07:23, Anurag Aggarwal <anurag19aggarwal@...il.com> wrote:
> While executing unwind backtrace instructions in ARM, in the function
> unwind_exec_insn()
> there are chances that SP overflows from stack.
>
>
> For example while executing instruction with opcode 0xAE, vsp can go
> beyond stack to area that has not been allocated till now.
>
> unsigned long *vsp = (unsigned long *)ctrl->vrs[SP];
> int reg;
>
> /* pop R4-R[4+bbb] */
> for (reg = 4; reg <= 4 + (insn & 7); reg++)
> ctrl->vrs[reg] = *vsp++;
>
> The above scenario can happen while executing any of the unwind instruction.
>
> One of the ways to fix the problem is to check for vsp with stack
> limits before we increment it, but doing it for all the instructions
> seems a little bad.
>
> I just want to know that if anyone has faced the problem before
I haven't seen it but I think with some stack (or unwind bytecode)
corruption it could happen.
I think we could place some checks only when vsp is assigned and return
-URC_FAILURE, together with some warning.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists